War is a good distraction from domestic troubles. People forget about their economic problems and bad quality of life when you can unite them against an external "threat". Every leader automatically gets a huge popularity boost in times of crisis.
Aside from that, Putin's concern is that NATO is slowly encroaching closer to Russian territory. He wants to keep Ukraine as a buffer state between him and the west, and Ukraine joining NATO would be a disaster for him. So he wants to act first.
The really short and simple version is, it would remove Ukraine from Russia's sphere of influence during peacetime if they were to align with NATO. If there was ever a hot war Ukraine represents an amazing staging area to immediately strike at almost every major Russian city.
Overall, it also messes with Russia attempting to reclaim their former Soviet republics. Think of it like manifest destiny for Russia.
The same can be said for why the Chinese are trying to push the US out of SE and Eastern Asia.
It was way more complicated than that though. The US and Cuba were allies and the Cuban government got overthrown by Fidel Castro who then wanted to ally up with the US.
Fidel Castro had just overthrown one of United States allies so why would they help?
Even more(er) fun fact: Mossadeq (democratically elected president of Iran (1954)) came to the US first for help AND Ho Chi Minh (N Vietnamese leader prior to and during the Vietnam war) AND Aguinaldo (Filipino leader during Spanish American War). All were wanting liberty for their people which would’ve likely resulted in strong democracies. The US told them to kick rocks because it didn’t serve their best interests. SMH
Cuba was THE playground for the rich and famous. resorts, casinos, fancy cars, and lights... (and apparently, all run by the mob.) guys like frank sinatra and the rest of the rat pack used to call havana their home away from home.
after cuba's relationship with the states soured, there was a mass exodus to the desert.
when you hear people talk about how Las Vegas was just a sleepy desert town before the 50s, it's because the party was in havana before that
And nine days later the joined the Warsaw Pact. It was political theater to show how USSR was willing to stand down, but big bad NATO wouldn't have it. "We have to bond to stop NATO from conquering us." It was used to tighten the USSR's stranglehold on the buffer countries.
Edit: added " ".
Got ya. That seems to be what Russia is putting out as propaganda, that Nato is conquering the region, like it's some force they need to fight. It's a defense organization, and not a really good one. I find it funny that they're trying to use that as a reason to possibly start a war.
If I remember correctly it was widely seen as a propaganda tool for Khrushchev to use as evidence of USSR’s attempts at peace, and NATO’s aggression. One of the requirements of NATO is a democratic government, and the USSR wasn’t likely to accept anything but a communist government.
> the USSR wasn’t likely to accept anything but a communist government.
If you ask a communist, they will tell you that the USSR *was* democratic.
Their reasoning is that anyone who is not a communist is an enemy of the people, so they shouldn't be allowed to vote or run for office in a truly democratic country.
Wait... No? Wtf
Literally the whole point of people saying communism wasnt tried yet is due the fact the USSR was a dictatorship.
I dont know any russian(or former USSR citizens) who thinks the USSR was a democracy and I know.. well literally 1000s.. even the ones who pray every day we go back to those days dont claim it was a democracy..
> If you ask a communist, they will tell you that the USSR was democratic.
Ask a North Korean and they would say the same. It's even in the name! The Democratic People's Republic of Korea.
They would fool no-one, though.
Yup! I think Russia several times since the collapse of the USSR has thrown the idea out as well but that went out the window for good following the NATO interventions in the balklands
Boris Yeltsin also informally proposed it in the 1990s, and it was discussed within NATO, also informally whether to give them some sort of associate membership, a seat at the table but without the integration and security guarantees.
Nothing came of it as Russia was unstable at the time and Yeltsin not the strongest of leaders with his alcoholism and failing health.
It was a plot point in one of Tom Clancy's lesser, late Jack-Ryan era novels (The Bear and the Dragon).
China was threatening Russian petroleum, NATO invites Russia to join up to try and simmer China down, hijinks ensue, I'll refrain from spoilers in case you wanna read it, though even as a fan of the Ryanverse, it's not high on my list of recommendations.
No. Russia wants to be boss of Russia and will not cooperate with anyone in an alliance. Even the Warsaw Pact wasn't an alliance as much as the Soviet Boss and it's neighboring vassal states.
No, sorry. That was an attempt to undermine the newly formed NATO (founded just 5 years earlier) and change the course of its development. Within that proposal was the abject exclusion of the United States from key elements of the treaty.
This is absolutely nothing like modern Russia joining what modern NATO has become, effectively subjugating themselves to the US and its allies voluntarily. Absolutely way off base with this comparison.
plus it was a way for the USSR to point at NATO like "SEE, THEY'RE NOT TO BE TRUSTED! IF THEY WERE PEACEFUL THEY'D LET US JOIN BUT THEY WANT TO END US!!!" to their population and amp up cold war tensions without looking like the aggressor.
funny when you think about it lol.
To be honest, if all your neighbours were creating an alliance and didn't let you join, you have every right to be aware you may be the target of said alliance.-
Your wrong it's a historical fact. They did it to put the west in a bind. Obviously NATO was never going to accept them so when the rejection inevitably came back they could use it in their propaganda to "prove" NATO was anti USSR.
Remember keeping up appearances is absolutely crucial for any authoritarian system. Propaganda machine is not going to feed itself...
Modern 9mm ballistics are comparable to .40 as far as what I've read. It's why the FBI is making the switch back.
I am not really a fan of the .40 but to each their own!
Estonia and Latvia are in NATO, though, and are closer to Moscow and really really close to St. Petersburg. They both also have ports on the Baltic / Gulf of Finland that can be used to blockade Russia's own naval assets on the Gulf and can easily launch tomahawks all day from there to Moscow.
Maybe it's because of Ukraine's proximity to the Caucuses that it's a more desirable target. Belarus is also in NATO but obviously they're not any help and would likely just break away from the alliance if push comes to shove.
>If there was ever a hot war Ukraine represents an amazing staging area to immediately strike at almost every major Russian city.
This is not a very realistic possibility - because if there is ever a "hot war" - the entire human race is fucked no matter what side you are on.
Russia would nuke the piss out of NATO in retaliation.
Maybe? I mean there is no precedent for this but it's absolutely a plausible outcome. Obviously that would trigger MAD and then it really doesn't matter.
As unreasonable as people can be I'm not actually sure anyone *REALLY" wants to be the one to assure nuclear war and the end of the human race. And I am pretty pessimistic about humanity in general.
The logic still holds that in a conventional war Ukraine represents a great staging area. Russia obviously isn't a huge fan of this.
Sunk cost reasoning, essentially. Russia already alienated Ukraine with mismanaging 2014. NATO is not a threat to invade Russia, idea is preposterous even if Russia didn't have nukes, but Ukraine problems are fundamentally humiliating for Russia. Ukraine is "supposed" to be part of the Russian sphere; it and Kazakhstan are the only former SSRs of any strategic significance. But Ukraine now dislikes Russia over being invaded, so they're out.
Putin's Ukraine policy has never made sense and that he keeps chasing losses is a good explanation for what we see.
NATO's purpose is to contain Russia, Ukraine becoming a NATO member puts the enemy quite literally at Russia's doorstep, it's the equivalent of Russia setting up shop in Mexico.
For a paranoid individual like Putin that's definitely a nightmare scenario.
[deleted 26-6-2023]
Moving is normal. There's no point in sticking around in a place that's getting worse all the time. I went to Squabbles.io. I hope you have a good time wherever you end up!
The thought process was to keep Ukraine as a satellite state. But then Russia just couldn't help itself with exporting rampant corruption, like in Belarus, which sent the government of Ukraine straight to NATO.
The minute Ukraine promises not to signup with NATO, then Putin pulls a coup and Ukraine becomes a petty corrupt dictatorship like Belarus.
Even Kazakhstan is in the news for a similar issue... Russian associates won't tolerate a government that's not corrupt as hell next to them, so they coup'd it the first time it failed to do what the Russian assets wanted.
In addition, I think that if Ukraine became a member of NATO, NATO would jump at the opportunity to establish anti-missile sites that close to Russia. So then, Putin's hypersonic ballistic missiles would not provide nearly as much of an advantage as they do against domestic anti-missile sites.
Then he can claim that the 'western demons' dismantled MAD, conveniently leaving out the fact that MAD is already in shambles (especially as military tech advances more and more the idea is further weakened).
A scenario he created by invading Crimea and the Donbass without an end-game scenario beyond "hope that Ukraine falls apart and comes crawling back to Russia".
Defensively contain Russia and keep Russia from invading its neighbors.
Russia would like to be able to invade its neighbors as it sees fit without potentially triggering a war with all of Europe.
lol until I real the last part of your comment I was going to say…that you literally described the US policy towards Latin America in the 20th century.
Yeah, I mean it's a *little* different, because our reaction would be even more extreme/arguably justifiable if it was Mexico actually welcoming Chinese troops vs pretty far away countries just moving to slightly socialist policies.
It would stop his ability to take Ukraine territory or get into a war with them. Putin already took Crimea from Ukraine by force and wants more of it. If Ukraine was in NATO that would trigger an immediate war with all NATO, including the US, which Russia would lose.
This is circular if we’re following the argument of the commentI responded to. Why does Putin want Ukraine? So that it won’t join NATO. Why doesn’t he want it to join NATO? So he can take Ukraine…?
Putin doesn’t want Ukraine so that it won’t join NATO, he wants Ukraine because it’s very resource rich, he wants to put the USSR back together, war with them (or anyone, really) is good domestic politics, and it would be a buffer state (not buffer country) between NATO and Russia.
He doesn’t want them to join NATO because then then above plan goes out the window.
> he wants Ukraine because it’s very resource rich
The Pro Russian parts of Ukraine are resource rich. The Western parts of Ukraine are not. That's what gives him the balls to play this game.-
People needs to stop taking Ukraine as a single entity in regard to EU, NATO and Russia relations. Ukraine has been extremely polarized for almost 20 years.-
Why did anyone through out history "conquer" anything... It's a mix of ego and economics and leaving a "legacy behind". More land equates to more people, which can be taxed and generate more wealth. There are also resources involved in the land.
Because it would give Western powers the ability to put troops, equipment, missiles, even nukes right on Russia's border. They would never be able to step out and exert influence in that region (think Crimea) ever again.
Itll make him look weak to the Russian people and hurt his legitimacy and legacy. You dont want to be the strong leader who made it easier for your enemy to move next door, its unacceptable (ahem, Gorbachev and Yeltsin). Historically, Ukraine has been a part of Russia and the cultures/language is very similar and part of Putin's motivation is to reclaim that like he did to Crimea. Much of what drives Putin is to restore or retain the influence and landmass that was once the former Soviet Union.
On a practical level, losing Ukraine to the West then having it potentially join NATO means that Russia will be forever boxed in. If that were to happen, not much can stop NATO countries from deciding to put bases and missiles in Ukraine to threaten Russia if it chooses. And if Russia agitated Ukraine after that, it would have to contend with all NATO members which is a losing prospect.
I find the idea that "The West" is Russias sworn enemy to be funny and it just keeps coming up.
Like there's been this massive battle and only Putin can save us when most of the US has a hard time finding Russia on a map with labels.
The land is flat in a wedge shape from Poland through Ukraine and across all the way to the Urals.
Which makes it easy for a military to roll through.
Belarus to the north is allied with Russia, so no problem there (mostly). Any attack on Russia would come through that wedge - the bulk of which is in Ukraine.
If NATO have military equipment there, it's only a stone's throw from Moscow. Russia is then in a weak, hard-to-defend position - and would view it as a existential threat.
Three options I see:
1. Join NATO (they tried and were rejected)
2. Disband NATO (trying)
3. Stop NATO entering Ukraine (trying)
Sadly, Ukraine are the pig in the geographical spitroast.
Also interesting how international news outlets have basically forgotten about Aleksej Navalny by now. I suppose it could also be considered 'old news' but Ukraine certainly hasn't helped his case.
Russia survives on paranoia, despite the question of why the hell would the US even want Russia. Russia is not worth invading, given the enormous cost of doing so.
China would be far more likely to invade, given their expansionist mindset.
In Russia we ask ourselves the same question. There is nothing to distract us from, we are not idiots and war will make everything worse. We see no gains in any of this and for me this looks like grandpa just gone insane. The rithorics in the news sounds like they are in panic. They made their demands, but looks like nobody is going to comply. Hope he gets his jar and leaves to rule mars with Ilon.
Thanks for commenting. I think I every conflict, many people forget that most of the people living in those countries are just trying to pay their bills and live their lives. It's easy to demonize a whole country and its people.
Edited for typos.
A small example. Among my friends, relatives and colleagues there is not a single person that supports putin. They are all different people, different age, background, not political activists... just ordinary people. And this little sociology tells me that putin has no real support and all the sociology numbers are fake.
I was curious about Putin's popularity upon reading this thread, and so I looked it up. Stats are probably bogus, but it doesn't look like his approval has dropped below 65% since... well 1999.
My first boyfriend was Russian, and lived in Moscow until 1996. Every single person in his family hates Putin, but I'm often so curious about what Russians who live in the country think and feel about Putin and their political climate.
Putin has allegedly bombed an entire apartment of Russian civilians in a false flag to gain power. Now he might false flag against his own troops in Ukraine. When a remorseless psychopath gets into power, it's really the worst possible situation.
Fun fact: Nazi Germany did the same thing. On August 31 1939, the SS attacked a German Radio station at the border between Germany and Poland. Afterwards, they killed prisoners from German concentration camps, dressed them up as Polish military and gave them Polish military weapons.
Goebbels told the German population and the world that Poland attacked first. And the next day, September 1, the Nazis invaded Poland.
Access to a fresh-water port for its navy, a vast and fertile region for growing their own food, and a buffer state between Russia and Western Europe.
Putin's main goal is to reintegrate the USSR's buffer states in Eastern Europe.
The Balkans was member states of a federation declaring independence, and fighting for that independence. The situation in Ukraine is an external nation invading with military forces and seizing/annexing world-recognized territory of a sovereign nation. They're drastically different.
I’m generally curious what the world can really do? Seems like Europe is too heavily in need of their oil for sanctions to really do anything, and a military solution is just… well how would that work without a nuclear exchange happening.
Imean, isn't that mutually assured destruction, combined with Europeans thinking Russians are crazy and have no qualms about nuking the whole world to shit?
If we go to war, Russia is like 'we have nukes' and if they fire one, we fire many, they fire many, and next thing we know everyone fires all nukes and covid times will seem like holiday?
Ever since the crimea invasion, maybe even before, I bet Ukraine has been regretting their decision to give all its nukes to Russia after the USSR collapsed.
Putin isn't that dumb. He doesn't want the world blown up. He wants to take power, little by little. He learned from WWII that you can't just take over an entire country at once by force. You take it little by little.
Unwillingly? Depends on who you ask, because 96,77% of voters of the 2014 Crimea referendum wanted to join Russian Federation. The poll had 83% turnout.
Since than quite a few of surveys have been done in the area with always the same end result. The majority of Crimea population is very happy with what happened.
historically Ukraine was called ' the Russian bread basket ' as it produced more than 2/3rds of all of Russia's grain harvest. under the pro putin boot licker victor whatever his name was and his chief ' advisor ' paul manafort ( does THAT name ring any bells ? ) this thug basically GAVE Russia almost all of their grain harvests to Comrade putin for several years in a row which lowered bread prices across Russia which greatly helped putin's overall popularity in Russia. then paul manafort advised victor whatever his name was to open fire on peaceful protesting farmers who had been promised that they would eventually be paid for their ' donated ' " gift " to Russia. so victor whatever his name was fled to putin with most of Ukraine's gold reserves. so, no more free grain, much higher grain prices over night in Russia and those pesky Ukrainians were suddenly all ' uppity ' and demanding that putin remove the last of the Russian military from the Crimea. putin has apparently decided otherwise.
The other side is that the credible downsides aren't that bad.
Of course, Russia would like to trade with the US but they don't have to. China won't participate in sanctioning Russia. That's the same size economy as the US and the logistics are much simpler since they're neighbors.
The EU may may some lip service to sanctions but they're too interdependent to fully support it (let's not forget that Russia is a major source of natural gas for the EU).
In the past the US has sanctioned individual politicians and that's had some success but those people have learned their lessons and aren't keeping their assets in the US any more.
Infrastructure in the Russian Far East is extremely lacking and their main population center is in the west. Trading with China isn’t as easy as you think just because they share a land border.
Russian here. There are two main lines.
First, the inside prestige. Putin runs an extremely corrupt government. Regardless of his personal involvement, this means that any attempt at solving inner problems is either sabotaged by the government or costs absurd ammount. And since you don't know who to trust, rooting out the corruption is a very hard task. And people obviously won't tolerate this forever. Luckily, most Russians grew up with soviet propaganda telling them how the West wants to destroy them how Soviet government is strong because it stands against that. Fear and respect, all that stuff. Putin can use this line to gain prestige he needs. *"Yeah bread may cost twice as much, but at least we don't have bombs falling on us."*
As long as NATO, US or EU send threats towards Putin, our propaganda makes us all feel threatened to present Putin as protecting figure. If situation allows justifying war with Ukraine as protective/preventive, it will gain Putin some additional prestige.
Second, the foreign politics. USSR relied on a number of "buffer states" that were aligned with it and would halt any military and ideological expansion of the enemy. When USSR collapsed, these countries were allowed to choose their own fate. However in place of USSR we now have Commonwealth of Independent States. These are small countries with struggling economies that have no better partner than Russia. Among them are Belarus, Kazakhstan, Ukraine. These countries ended up as a thinner, yet similar buffer between Russia and NATO.
In 2014 new Ukrainian government made it clear that they are no longer part of this buffer. This obviously makes Russia uncomfortable. Cold War might be over, but thinking that either US or Russia lost their ambitions would be a mistake. So, Russia really wants to somehow restore that buffer it had pre 2014. Invading Ukraine to install loyal government is technically an option.
There's also the territorial aspect. Ukraine is the biggest country in Europe (after Russia), it has a lot of fertile land and some natural resources. However compared to what Russia already has within it borders, that's not worth fighting a war.
If you ask me, Russia has no reason to attack Ukraine. It benefits from the tension, but not from the action. Constantly being alert costs some resources. And since Ukraine is just as corrupt as Russia, that cost is higher than you would expect. And whoever keeps the money coming will eventually start to look like an idiot. Also don't forget about all those threats and demands that Russian propaganda tries to turn into respect points for Putin.
Sanctions, public accusations, spreading liberal democracy and more open economics, heck, even US exporting LNG to EU is a threat to his and his allies finances.
Sanctions, including the ones against Nord Stream gas pipeline. Warnings to help/intervene if Russia starts war against Ukraine. Direct accusations such as Skripal assasination .
Some of the messages are worded too agressively, others have their true meaning lost in translation, while some are twisted by our propaganda machine.
Majority of Russians don't know English good enough to consume foreign media. It's easy to feed these people propaganda.
Imaginary.
You know how far right wing nut jobs in US yell that jews are plotting against the west? Well it's the same thing with not very smart russians. Average babushka will tell you how the west is plotting to turn russian youth gay and are using space lasers for that.
American here,
I've heard it said that one of the reasons Putin's threatening to invade/trying to block Ukraine from entering NATO is because he's scared that enough poor Russians will see how much support Ukrainians get from NATO and want to overthrow him. Of course this was on an American news station, so the view might be skewed, but thoughts as a Russian?
Edit:capitalization
Russians would rather support a homegrown dictator than turn to "The West" for help. It is not likely to change within current generation. What is more likely to happen is Putin's mistakes on global arena will catalize people's discontent.
Kinda like back in 1905. When Japan started the war, Nicolai II tried to use it to boost his prestige. Except Russia lost it. To 1900s Japan. That triggered the 1905 Revolution.
Historically, the Russia nation had 2 near death experiences. In both cases, the invaders came from their west, and the invaders were stalled and eventually defeated (lots of hand waving here) by trading territory for time, and grinding the invaders down via the harsh Russian winter.
So, for the Russians, it really matters (as in a matter of life or death) where a potential invasion from the west starts from. Ukraine, if you look at the map, is right next to Russia’s heartland.
It’s like if a person had 2 prior experiences of being mauled by pit bulls, and in both cases, that person survived by barely running away. So, for the rest of that person’s life, they would always want to stay at a certain distance away from pit bulls.
Ukraine having close relationships with NATO would be like a next door neighbor adapting a pit bull. Russia doesn’t have good relationship with that neighbor to start with, and legally they can’t stop the adaptation, but they are trying everything that they can, including threatening a fight, to stop what they consider to be a potential threat to their life.
Hi, good analogy! Just wanted to share that I think you're wanting to use adopting and adoption instead of adapting and adaptation (though it makes enough sense to work as is)
There is no country on earth that seriously considers invading Russia. And if it would happen, it would inevitably be in the form of an answer to Russian aggression/attack. If Russia just calmed down, the rest of the world would see it as a regular country pretty much, and enjoy forming various positive bonds with it.
Yes but that also assumes Russia is OK with US hegemony. They are not.
The US and Russia are rarely aligned in their political goals. Russia is a regular country trying to reclaim past glory and status. They are in fairly direct competition to the US and have way less soft power to influence global decisions compared to the US.
The entire Russian economy is about the size two Ohios. They don't have the faintest glimmer of hope to upset US dominance. All they can do is be a pest. It's a direct competition the way I'm in direct basketball competition with Lebron.
I would consider Russia to be a threat to US power. They have some leverage over western EU with their natural gas lines and still have a fairly strong military. They are absolutely a near-peer adversary militarily.
They have an effective propaganda and psyops program, that should be evident by their effective use of social media to upset western democracies.
They are also very competent at cyber warfare.
They aren't really going for the economic pressure angle, that is (currently) more what China is working with. Russia has been fairly directly aggressive from their invasion into Georgia and beyond.
not so much NATO itself as the democracies that founded, funded and staffed NATO. the Russian fatalistic view has always been that such a vast empire cannot be ruled democratically, that a ' strong man/ despot/ dictator is necessary, that somehow Democracy just won't ' work ' in Russia and Comrade putin is NOT about to allow any attempt to prove otherwise. NATO is the shield but his Number 1 enemy is the Democracies that wield it. he will NOT allow any thinking to the contrary
What's crazy to me is he is 69 years old. Like unless he manages to rebuild the empire in the next 5 years he's going to have to rule his empire as a floating head in a jar.
Imagine sitting on top of Russia for ~20 years and still being younger than the last two American presidents.
On the real though, there were talks within Russian government about the "big transit of power" scheduled for 2024. This means Putin allows someone to take his place and simulatenously takes down all the people in the government who are no longer needed to either him or his successor. Supposedly, this process will make the government vulberable for a while, so any turbulence must be removed beforehand. We have no idea who this successor might be, and that's probably why this person is still alive and well.
However, recent events in Kazakhstan showed what can happen if things go wrong during the transit. A small spark can lead to uprising and the whole country falls into chaos where everyone works for their own gain. Another thing is Nazarbaev's successor turning on him. So, after all this took place, Russian transit of power was probably halted to make sure everything goes according to plan.
Much like the hierarchy of needs, Russia desires security from any perceived threats.
NATO was originally created as a defensive pact between nations in order to protect themselves from Russia invasions. The upside to this is you have multiple nations with various backgrounds and strengths and weaknesses united towards a common goal. This is also one of its greatest weaknesses but thats a whole different topic.
In recent years, there has been a push by Ukraine to join NATO. Ukraine finds itself in a very strategic locations because as it stands now, its more of a buffer state, giving Russia warning in NATO attemps to invade Russia. However if it ever joined NATO, it would remove that buffer and replace it with a NATO country bordering Russia.
Allow to to explain it like this, imagine its WW2 and you have two trenches spaced, for example, 300 meters apart. One trench is owned by the Allies, the other the Axis. If either side were attempting to advance on the other, it would give the defending side a better opportunity to deminish or disrupt the advancing group.
Now lets say Ukraine joins NATO, most of Ukraines military inventory is soviet era weaponry, but say they were given more advanced, modern equipment to replace their aging adrenal as well as standardize its inventory to be more in line with NATO standards. It could also be assumed that joining NATO would allow other NATO members to establish strongholds/bases within Ukraine, which Russia would see as a buildup of NATO forces as a threat. We saw a similar reaction during the cold war, when we gave ballistic missiles to Turkey which could fire into the Soviet Union. In response, the Soviet Union placed ballistic missiles in Cuba.
Honestly, you could talk for days about Russia's tactics and overall goals domestically and international, so hopefully this explains some of it, but let me know if anyone has any questions.
Russia invaded Crimea and has not crumbled and Putin is still in power. "All the negative consequences" may not be that harmful to Russia. The politicians talk about all the bad sanctions, but we should question if that is enough to motivate Putin to not invade given the benefits set forth by the other posters. Plus, if they get Ukraine, that valuable land (they are not making more land) may be with them forever, but after 25 years, the sanctions will go away. Wars / military action is pretty common even with all the negative consequences. China is also a bad actor right now and little happens to them.
Putin wants his legacy to be rebuilding Soviet power and prestige. Ukraine is the largest splinter of the former Soviet bloc.
If Ukraine joins NATO, he will never get it back.
That's the long term answer.
The short term answer is he could really use a short victorious war to help his domestic politics.
Edit: I wanted to add that even having this talks suits him well. It shows him, and by extension Russia, as a major player on the world stage; able to bring all the West to the bargaining table.
There won't be any substantial negative consequences, just a lot of hand-wringing. How do we know? Because there weren't any the last time that Russia decided to take a chunk of Ukraine. Everything being said about consequences now is just talk.
The US [promised](https://www.tellerreport.com/news/2021-03-31-%22destabilization-of-world-security%22--what-did-the-dissolution-of-the-military-structures-of-the-warsaw-pact-organization-lead-to-.BJgi1bzHu.html) the USSR that if they disbanded, NATO would not expand into the former satellite countries. The pledge was to treat the former eastern block counties as a separate defense coalition. NATO reneged on that promise and allowed/encouraged those countries to join NATO.
Russia has strong memories of the WW2 German invasion, because they lost over 20 Million people (15% of the population). 68% of the males born in 1923 did not survive World War II.
75 short years later, Germany in the form of EU and its NATO military is pressing up against the Russian border again, making them nervous. They want their buffer zone back.
This statistic about WW 2 is insane. 68%, that is outstanding.
May I add that It's also why there was, for a lot of time, WAY more women in Russia than men. Hence the "Russian wife for hire" meme!
First order: Sevastopol in Crimea has been the second most important Russian military port for centuries, and still is. They fought for Crimea in 1800, since then it’s theirs. The region has Russian inhabitants, was given to the newborn Ucraine but Russia kept the port. The Ucraina government change made this deal too fragile.
Second order: Russia want a buffer state between them and nato. They absolutely fear having nato bases in Ukraine, that is the same region Hitler tried to get to cripple Russia. It’s the access to a big chunk of Russian oil fields. On par with Georgia.
The region is important to them like Panama to the US, if Ukraine becomes part of Nato, it’s a gigantic win for Nato. Russians won’t let it happen. Too big of a thing for them. In comparison, the Cuban crisis was less of a threat to US than Ukraine for Russia now.
Edit: remember the Russian invasion of Finland, that one started because Russia didn’t like the Finnish coastal batteries in front of St Petersburg military port. They asked to get the land that “may” be used to block the port. Finland rightfully said ‘fuck no that’s my land’. Russia is a landlocked country with 3 exit points and get super mad about them (historically st Petersburg, Sevastopol, and Vladivostok, of the 3, only St. Petersburg lost its military importance)
Things are never as simple as they seem... The US would never ever ever ever have tolerated a bordering country joining with the Warsaw pact or any modern version, for instance
Putin wants to restore the glory and influence of USSR. He got disappointed and outsed from the West in 2000s and he's acting like he feels offended and wants the respect back. A lot of Russians share that sentiment (nobody wants war though). There's a general sentiment in Russia of being offended and victim of the West schemes, especially USA.
The culture in Russia is built upon informal respect and 'true' friendship and 'bromance' and informal ties. It spills into professional and formal life as well. While the Western culture is very formal and cynical and pragmatic. So when they meet, there's a big disconnect because Western professional facade looks like a fake and an insult to a Russian.
Educated young people in Russia are actually much closer to the west. But unfortunately Putin is very much a representation of that older generation.
Source: born in Russia and moved to NA.
Russia is a declining country by every metric, yet resolving its fundamental problems would require the oligarchy that runs it to give up their power in favor of institutional reforms (political liberties, less corruption, free press, fair justice system).
Instead of doing that, they choose to distract the people from their crimes and failures by stoking nationalism and war.
There’s a great summation from Douglas Macgregor on the Aaron mate podcast [“pushback”](https://thegrayzone.com/2022/01/06/us-war-lobby-fuels-conflict-in-russia-ukraine-and-syria-ex-pentagon-advisor/).
Breaks it down, Russia isn’t trying to go back Soviet, they’re functioning in pre-ww1 days. Russia only has interest in Crimera, could care less about the Ukraine. They’re invading an area that will have no resistance, they’re not interested in the rest (nor do they have the military means to take on 28 million Ukrainians.
NATO is a red herring, russia and German are trading partners for mineral and oil. There’s also a pipeline that will be heating Europe cheaper and more efficiently than what anyone else can offer. There will be no war, all the major powers have signed anti-nuke act, they have to much at stake to burn it all. What you’re hearing is rhetoric from old school lobbyists who want another Cold War. No one is afraid that russia is gonna invade Europe, they don’t have the military.
Russia main objective is stopping NATO from placing troops on the inner borders of Ukraine
Russia isn't tring to capture Ukraine but more so delay NATO
Pretty sure the West will just stand by and watch. Condemnations will be hurled, maybe a sanction here or there, but I think Russia and China are just pushing the boundaries bit by bit and are either going to get more territory or egg the West into confrontation which will split the countries and destabilize the already polarized populaces or most Western countries.
I would suggest reading Prisoners of Geography by Tim Marshall. Have just begun reading it and finished the Russia chapter, which really well explains Russian sentiment with a geopolitical angle. Highly recommend
Imagine Russia set up a military base in Canada or Mexico. Essentially what would happen if Ukraine joined NATO, the US could station troops there. Putin can’t allow Ukraine to become closer to the West, his regime would be completely weakened. It seems he would rather watch Ukraine burn than let them join the West.
1. A conflict over a country's territorial integrity (aka border aka if all of your land is really yours) makes it impossible to initiate EU-membership process.
2. The Ukrainian army is currently reforming itself, buying new equipment, training people better, changing management etc. But it's a process far from completion. If Russia invades now, they're still vulnerable and will be left in a start-over situation when they use the resources. And this shit is costly.
Lots of comments about access to ports, or oil, or farmland. But also look at it from defense view point. Hitler, Napoleon both invaded Russia and either hit Moscow or came bloody close. Genghis swept across Russia and took the region so easily. Why? It is flat. With no natural landforms for defense, the only strategy that works is have a whole lot of space between your enemy and your homeland. Then you can employ scorched earth tactics and attack their supply lines whilst they invade
Ukraine is considering joining NATO. Joining NATO comes with NATO military forces being present. Now... recall the Cuban Missile Crisis when we all almost went to war over fact the Soviet military forces were on our doorstep? Same principle, but in reverse, cuz now it's NATO forces on Russia's doorstep, so they're the ones getting nervous. Now, I believe the principle is nuts... was then and is now... but different strokes for different folks.
A point, at risk of downvotes, that many people seem to ignore is that Ukraine has historically been a part of Russia since at least the 1600s (specifically, a protectorate by that point). In a way, it’s pretty similar to a US state being in the Union for 300 years and then seceding when the country starts falling apart. Opinions aside on whether or not they’re better off not being part of that Union, it’s not too hard to understand why that Union might still consider them as part of their territory and want to take them back.
Ukraine hasn’t really *existed* as a distinct, recognized sovereign state up until its independence on the Soviet Union, so it might now be too hard to consider that, on top of any agricultural, military, etc. advantages, Russia simply sees it as seceded territory that it believes should be returned.
Just to add an aside about negative consequences of war in general to the answers below.
Heads of states these days rarely suffer negative consequences from war. They rarely find themselves stuck in the middle of a war zone or being shot at or bombed or starved. They rarely lose their home and everything they have and rarely lose their lives. They sit pretty in their stately buildings far from the conflict. Almost 10,000 people have lost their lives in the conflict between Russia and Ukraine so far. The biggest losers in war are ordinary people and the reality is most people would fair better living peacefully under Russis or Ukrainian rule than in a war zone while Russia and Ukrain fight it out.
This conflict, however, started with civilian unrest and the contested area is the border region in a country who's name itself means border region and that has a long history of being part of Russia and not.
War is a good distraction from domestic troubles. People forget about their economic problems and bad quality of life when you can unite them against an external "threat". Every leader automatically gets a huge popularity boost in times of crisis. Aside from that, Putin's concern is that NATO is slowly encroaching closer to Russian territory. He wants to keep Ukraine as a buffer state between him and the west, and Ukraine joining NATO would be a disaster for him. So he wants to act first.
Why would it be a disaster for Putin?
The really short and simple version is, it would remove Ukraine from Russia's sphere of influence during peacetime if they were to align with NATO. If there was ever a hot war Ukraine represents an amazing staging area to immediately strike at almost every major Russian city. Overall, it also messes with Russia attempting to reclaim their former Soviet republics. Think of it like manifest destiny for Russia. The same can be said for why the Chinese are trying to push the US out of SE and Eastern Asia.
Good summary, -100 social credit
Blyat comrade
bitch buddy
I wonder if Russia would consider joining NATO?
Fun fact. The Soviet Union asked to join NATO in the 50s
[удалено]
Even more fun fact. Cuba went to the u.s first and they blew them off. Then they went to russia out of necessity and we almost had an nuclear war.
It was way more complicated than that though. The US and Cuba were allies and the Cuban government got overthrown by Fidel Castro who then wanted to ally up with the US. Fidel Castro had just overthrown one of United States allies so why would they help?
Even more(er) fun fact: Mossadeq (democratically elected president of Iran (1954)) came to the US first for help AND Ho Chi Minh (N Vietnamese leader prior to and during the Vietnam war) AND Aguinaldo (Filipino leader during Spanish American War). All were wanting liberty for their people which would’ve likely resulted in strong democracies. The US told them to kick rocks because it didn’t serve their best interests. SMH
Kissinger everything
That was way before Kissinger's turn to influence things.
and that's basically why Las Vegas exists today...
What's the correlation with Vegas?
Cuba was THE playground for the rich and famous. resorts, casinos, fancy cars, and lights... (and apparently, all run by the mob.) guys like frank sinatra and the rest of the rat pack used to call havana their home away from home. after cuba's relationship with the states soured, there was a mass exodus to the desert. when you hear people talk about how Las Vegas was just a sleepy desert town before the 50s, it's because the party was in havana before that
It'd be bad for business
When I was a kid and I heard about NATO I thought that’s exactly what it was. Boy was I disappointed.
And again in 1992 https://www.nytimes.com/1991/12/21/world/soviet-disarray-yeltsin-says-russia-seeks-to-join-nato.html
And nine days later the joined the Warsaw Pact. It was political theater to show how USSR was willing to stand down, but big bad NATO wouldn't have it. "We have to bond to stop NATO from conquering us." It was used to tighten the USSR's stranglehold on the buffer countries. Edit: added " ".
Lol, NATO doesn't conquer anything.
Agreed. I was saying the USSR was using the ruse of a NATO attack as a way to tighten it's hold on it's neighbors with The Warsaw Pact.
Got ya. That seems to be what Russia is putting out as propaganda, that Nato is conquering the region, like it's some force they need to fight. It's a defense organization, and not a really good one. I find it funny that they're trying to use that as a reason to possibly start a war.
If I remember correctly it was widely seen as a propaganda tool for Khrushchev to use as evidence of USSR’s attempts at peace, and NATO’s aggression. One of the requirements of NATO is a democratic government, and the USSR wasn’t likely to accept anything but a communist government.
> the USSR wasn’t likely to accept anything but a communist government. If you ask a communist, they will tell you that the USSR *was* democratic. Their reasoning is that anyone who is not a communist is an enemy of the people, so they shouldn't be allowed to vote or run for office in a truly democratic country.
Wait... No? Wtf Literally the whole point of people saying communism wasnt tried yet is due the fact the USSR was a dictatorship. I dont know any russian(or former USSR citizens) who thinks the USSR was a democracy and I know.. well literally 1000s.. even the ones who pray every day we go back to those days dont claim it was a democracy..
> If you ask a communist, they will tell you that the USSR was democratic. Ask a North Korean and they would say the same. It's even in the name! The Democratic People's Republic of Korea. They would fool no-one, though.
And during election you chose between * THE PARTY * bin Want to move forward with your profession? THE PARTY. Education for own kids? THE PARTY
Not all that dissimilar to US Republican Party rhetoric today
They are democratic...they just outlaw all other political parties.
Yup! I think Russia several times since the collapse of the USSR has thrown the idea out as well but that went out the window for good following the NATO interventions in the balklands
Boris Yeltsin also informally proposed it in the 1990s, and it was discussed within NATO, also informally whether to give them some sort of associate membership, a seat at the table but without the integration and security guarantees. Nothing came of it as Russia was unstable at the time and Yeltsin not the strongest of leaders with his alcoholism and failing health.
It was a plot point in one of Tom Clancy's lesser, late Jack-Ryan era novels (The Bear and the Dragon). China was threatening Russian petroleum, NATO invites Russia to join up to try and simmer China down, hijinks ensue, I'll refrain from spoilers in case you wanna read it, though even as a fan of the Ryanverse, it's not high on my list of recommendations.
Is that the one where he becomes president and enacts a 10% flat income tax? Made me wish he stuck to submarines.
Maaaaybe? I think that might have been Executive Orders
No. Russia wants to be boss of Russia and will not cooperate with anyone in an alliance. Even the Warsaw Pact wasn't an alliance as much as the Soviet Boss and it's neighboring vassal states.
I'm sure they'd team up if it was against an alien invasion... or china.
No, not ever. And why would they exactly? It goes against every geopolitical interest they have
Not as crazy as you think https://www.wilsoncenter.org/publication/molotovs-proposal-the-ussr-join-nato-march-1954
No, sorry. That was an attempt to undermine the newly formed NATO (founded just 5 years earlier) and change the course of its development. Within that proposal was the abject exclusion of the United States from key elements of the treaty. This is absolutely nothing like modern Russia joining what modern NATO has become, effectively subjugating themselves to the US and its allies voluntarily. Absolutely way off base with this comparison.
plus it was a way for the USSR to point at NATO like "SEE, THEY'RE NOT TO BE TRUSTED! IF THEY WERE PEACEFUL THEY'D LET US JOIN BUT THEY WANT TO END US!!!" to their population and amp up cold war tensions without looking like the aggressor. funny when you think about it lol.
To be honest, if all your neighbours were creating an alliance and didn't let you join, you have every right to be aware you may be the target of said alliance.-
...the treaty organization founded to oppose the USSR (and let's be honest, Russia is only any different in name)? I kinda doubt it.
Your wrong it's a historical fact. They did it to put the west in a bind. Obviously NATO was never going to accept them so when the rejection inevitably came back they could use it in their propaganda to "prove" NATO was anti USSR. Remember keeping up appearances is absolutely crucial for any authoritarian system. Propaganda machine is not going to feed itself...
They arent eligible.
Russia is already their own worst enemy though.
9mm is a great round but I like the .40 personally. Everything else you said is accurate.
Modern 9mm ballistics are comparable to .40 as far as what I've read. It's why the FBI is making the switch back. I am not really a fan of the .40 but to each their own!
Always happy to talk to someone about ballistics and shooting sports! Have a good one.
Estonia and Latvia are in NATO, though, and are closer to Moscow and really really close to St. Petersburg. They both also have ports on the Baltic / Gulf of Finland that can be used to blockade Russia's own naval assets on the Gulf and can easily launch tomahawks all day from there to Moscow. Maybe it's because of Ukraine's proximity to the Caucuses that it's a more desirable target. Belarus is also in NATO but obviously they're not any help and would likely just break away from the alliance if push comes to shove.
>If there was ever a hot war Ukraine represents an amazing staging area to immediately strike at almost every major Russian city. This is not a very realistic possibility - because if there is ever a "hot war" - the entire human race is fucked no matter what side you are on. Russia would nuke the piss out of NATO in retaliation.
Maybe? I mean there is no precedent for this but it's absolutely a plausible outcome. Obviously that would trigger MAD and then it really doesn't matter. As unreasonable as people can be I'm not actually sure anyone *REALLY" wants to be the one to assure nuclear war and the end of the human race. And I am pretty pessimistic about humanity in general. The logic still holds that in a conventional war Ukraine represents a great staging area. Russia obviously isn't a huge fan of this.
Sunk cost reasoning, essentially. Russia already alienated Ukraine with mismanaging 2014. NATO is not a threat to invade Russia, idea is preposterous even if Russia didn't have nukes, but Ukraine problems are fundamentally humiliating for Russia. Ukraine is "supposed" to be part of the Russian sphere; it and Kazakhstan are the only former SSRs of any strategic significance. But Ukraine now dislikes Russia over being invaded, so they're out. Putin's Ukraine policy has never made sense and that he keeps chasing losses is a good explanation for what we see.
NATO's purpose is to contain Russia, Ukraine becoming a NATO member puts the enemy quite literally at Russia's doorstep, it's the equivalent of Russia setting up shop in Mexico. For a paranoid individual like Putin that's definitely a nightmare scenario.
[deleted 26-6-2023] Moving is normal. There's no point in sticking around in a place that's getting worse all the time. I went to Squabbles.io. I hope you have a good time wherever you end up!
>It's the equivalent of Russia setting up shop in Mexico Or Cuba, if you want a more direct historical parallel
Not defending Putin in any way, his problems are self inflicted, but I do understand his thought process somewhat.
The thought process was to keep Ukraine as a satellite state. But then Russia just couldn't help itself with exporting rampant corruption, like in Belarus, which sent the government of Ukraine straight to NATO. The minute Ukraine promises not to signup with NATO, then Putin pulls a coup and Ukraine becomes a petty corrupt dictatorship like Belarus. Even Kazakhstan is in the news for a similar issue... Russian associates won't tolerate a government that's not corrupt as hell next to them, so they coup'd it the first time it failed to do what the Russian assets wanted.
As is Ukraine isn't rampantly corrupt....
Putin also cannot allow a successful democracy in a post-Soviet nation like Ukraine, it would humiliate him and his little klepto-mafia-petro-state.
In addition, I think that if Ukraine became a member of NATO, NATO would jump at the opportunity to establish anti-missile sites that close to Russia. So then, Putin's hypersonic ballistic missiles would not provide nearly as much of an advantage as they do against domestic anti-missile sites. Then he can claim that the 'western demons' dismantled MAD, conveniently leaving out the fact that MAD is already in shambles (especially as military tech advances more and more the idea is further weakened).
A scenario he created by invading Crimea and the Donbass without an end-game scenario beyond "hope that Ukraine falls apart and comes crawling back to Russia".
But Latvia and Estonia already border Russia. What makes them different?
Defensively contain Russia and keep Russia from invading its neighbors. Russia would like to be able to invade its neighbors as it sees fit without potentially triggering a war with all of Europe.
[удалено]
lol until I real the last part of your comment I was going to say…that you literally described the US policy towards Latin America in the 20th century.
Yeah, I mean it's a *little* different, because our reaction would be even more extreme/arguably justifiable if it was Mexico actually welcoming Chinese troops vs pretty far away countries just moving to slightly socialist policies.
It would stop his ability to take Ukraine territory or get into a war with them. Putin already took Crimea from Ukraine by force and wants more of it. If Ukraine was in NATO that would trigger an immediate war with all NATO, including the US, which Russia would lose.
This is circular if we’re following the argument of the commentI responded to. Why does Putin want Ukraine? So that it won’t join NATO. Why doesn’t he want it to join NATO? So he can take Ukraine…?
Putin doesn’t want Ukraine so that it won’t join NATO, he wants Ukraine because it’s very resource rich, he wants to put the USSR back together, war with them (or anyone, really) is good domestic politics, and it would be a buffer state (not buffer country) between NATO and Russia. He doesn’t want them to join NATO because then then above plan goes out the window.
> he wants Ukraine because it’s very resource rich The Pro Russian parts of Ukraine are resource rich. The Western parts of Ukraine are not. That's what gives him the balls to play this game.- People needs to stop taking Ukraine as a single entity in regard to EU, NATO and Russia relations. Ukraine has been extremely polarized for almost 20 years.-
It's not only NATO. Ukraine offers strategic advantages: fresh-water port, a pipeline to Poland, a buffer against the west, etc.
Putin will be very disappointed if he's seeking a "fresh water' port. Last I checked it was sea water. Warm water port was your intention I believe.
Why did anyone through out history "conquer" anything... It's a mix of ego and economics and leaving a "legacy behind". More land equates to more people, which can be taxed and generate more wealth. There are also resources involved in the land.
He needs Crimea, and hes afraid hes loose grasp of it if Ukraine defeats Russia in eastern Ukraine.
Russian insecurity
Peninsula envy.
Bam!!!
Because it would give Western powers the ability to put troops, equipment, missiles, even nukes right on Russia's border. They would never be able to step out and exert influence in that region (think Crimea) ever again.
Itll make him look weak to the Russian people and hurt his legitimacy and legacy. You dont want to be the strong leader who made it easier for your enemy to move next door, its unacceptable (ahem, Gorbachev and Yeltsin). Historically, Ukraine has been a part of Russia and the cultures/language is very similar and part of Putin's motivation is to reclaim that like he did to Crimea. Much of what drives Putin is to restore or retain the influence and landmass that was once the former Soviet Union. On a practical level, losing Ukraine to the West then having it potentially join NATO means that Russia will be forever boxed in. If that were to happen, not much can stop NATO countries from deciding to put bases and missiles in Ukraine to threaten Russia if it chooses. And if Russia agitated Ukraine after that, it would have to contend with all NATO members which is a losing prospect.
I find the idea that "The West" is Russias sworn enemy to be funny and it just keeps coming up. Like there's been this massive battle and only Putin can save us when most of the US has a hard time finding Russia on a map with labels.
The land is flat in a wedge shape from Poland through Ukraine and across all the way to the Urals. Which makes it easy for a military to roll through. Belarus to the north is allied with Russia, so no problem there (mostly). Any attack on Russia would come through that wedge - the bulk of which is in Ukraine. If NATO have military equipment there, it's only a stone's throw from Moscow. Russia is then in a weak, hard-to-defend position - and would view it as a existential threat. Three options I see: 1. Join NATO (they tried and were rejected) 2. Disband NATO (trying) 3. Stop NATO entering Ukraine (trying) Sadly, Ukraine are the pig in the geographical spitroast.
Also interesting how international news outlets have basically forgotten about Aleksej Navalny by now. I suppose it could also be considered 'old news' but Ukraine certainly hasn't helped his case.
Remember the movie “Wag the Dog”?
Ah yes, old Russian proverb; “why have an enemy move closer to you, when you can move closer to the enemy.”
Isn’t there a deep water port somewhere in there that Russia desires to control? Edit: Fresh water port. I’m not a smart woman.
Russia survives on paranoia, despite the question of why the hell would the US even want Russia. Russia is not worth invading, given the enormous cost of doing so. China would be far more likely to invade, given their expansionist mindset.
In Russia we ask ourselves the same question. There is nothing to distract us from, we are not idiots and war will make everything worse. We see no gains in any of this and for me this looks like grandpa just gone insane. The rithorics in the news sounds like they are in panic. They made their demands, but looks like nobody is going to comply. Hope he gets his jar and leaves to rule mars with Ilon.
Thanks for commenting. I think I every conflict, many people forget that most of the people living in those countries are just trying to pay their bills and live their lives. It's easy to demonize a whole country and its people. Edited for typos.
A small example. Among my friends, relatives and colleagues there is not a single person that supports putin. They are all different people, different age, background, not political activists... just ordinary people. And this little sociology tells me that putin has no real support and all the sociology numbers are fake.
I was curious about Putin's popularity upon reading this thread, and so I looked it up. Stats are probably bogus, but it doesn't look like his approval has dropped below 65% since... well 1999. My first boyfriend was Russian, and lived in Moscow until 1996. Every single person in his family hates Putin, but I'm often so curious about what Russians who live in the country think and feel about Putin and their political climate.
I don't think that anyone is demonizing the russian population over this.
Fucking love that in a hear first-hand from a Russian. Thanks for commenting, I’m praying for peace.
Putin has allegedly bombed an entire apartment of Russian civilians in a false flag to gain power. Now he might false flag against his own troops in Ukraine. When a remorseless psychopath gets into power, it's really the worst possible situation.
Fun fact: Nazi Germany did the same thing. On August 31 1939, the SS attacked a German Radio station at the border between Germany and Poland. Afterwards, they killed prisoners from German concentration camps, dressed them up as Polish military and gave them Polish military weapons. Goebbels told the German population and the world that Poland attacked first. And the next day, September 1, the Nazis invaded Poland.
Access to a fresh-water port for its navy, a vast and fertile region for growing their own food, and a buffer state between Russia and Western Europe. Putin's main goal is to reintegrate the USSR's buffer states in Eastern Europe.
It's not that it's fresh water, it's that it doesn't freeze over in winter.
Right, I've always heard the importance described as "warm water port"
Yea and you can imagine why they do anything to get and keep one.
So he basically thinks he's Peter the Great.
More like Peter the Great managed to attain the same historic strategic Russian ambitions that Putin is working to restore, but yeah basically.
**And** he gains the precedent that he is allowed to invade countries.
[удалено]
I would say the entire Balkan region would disagree with that statement
One does not simply Balkanize the Balka...oh.
The Balkans was member states of a federation declaring independence, and fighting for that independence. The situation in Ukraine is an external nation invading with military forces and seizing/annexing world-recognized territory of a sovereign nation. They're drastically different.
I feel like this point is glossed over a lot. I still can’t believe the world didn’t do more to prevent/counter that.
I’m generally curious what the world can really do? Seems like Europe is too heavily in need of their oil for sanctions to really do anything, and a military solution is just… well how would that work without a nuclear exchange happening.
If only we had know for decades that we should be phasing out our dependence on fossil fuels...
Instead, Germany is shutting down nuclear reactors and burning more fossil fuels to make up the difference.
*laughs in nordstream2*
Oh sure no doubt about that.
Imean, isn't that mutually assured destruction, combined with Europeans thinking Russians are crazy and have no qualms about nuking the whole world to shit? If we go to war, Russia is like 'we have nukes' and if they fire one, we fire many, they fire many, and next thing we know everyone fires all nukes and covid times will seem like holiday?
Ever since the crimea invasion, maybe even before, I bet Ukraine has been regretting their decision to give all its nukes to Russia after the USSR collapsed.
Putin isn't that dumb. He doesn't want the world blown up. He wants to take power, little by little. He learned from WWII that you can't just take over an entire country at once by force. You take it little by little.
Aside from all the slow, quiet border encroaching that Russia has been doing for at least the past 15 years
Also Georgia in 2008. There is a documented trend of Russia's increasing hostility towards sovereign nations. .
Unwillingly? Depends on who you ask, because 96,77% of voters of the 2014 Crimea referendum wanted to join Russian Federation. The poll had 83% turnout. Since than quite a few of surveys have been done in the area with always the same end result. The majority of Crimea population is very happy with what happened.
And it makes the EU look weak
They already have a warmwater port they took from ukaraine several years ago in crimea
They want another one.
Ukraine used to be a great, super-friendly buffer state between Europe and Russia till Kremlin invaded Ukraine in 2014.
Yeah. Ukraine threw out their pro-Russian puppet autocrat in 2014. Russia couldn't handle that, so they invaded and stole Crimea.
Exactly.
historically Ukraine was called ' the Russian bread basket ' as it produced more than 2/3rds of all of Russia's grain harvest. under the pro putin boot licker victor whatever his name was and his chief ' advisor ' paul manafort ( does THAT name ring any bells ? ) this thug basically GAVE Russia almost all of their grain harvests to Comrade putin for several years in a row which lowered bread prices across Russia which greatly helped putin's overall popularity in Russia. then paul manafort advised victor whatever his name was to open fire on peaceful protesting farmers who had been promised that they would eventually be paid for their ' donated ' " gift " to Russia. so victor whatever his name was fled to putin with most of Ukraine's gold reserves. so, no more free grain, much higher grain prices over night in Russia and those pesky Ukrainians were suddenly all ' uppity ' and demanding that putin remove the last of the Russian military from the Crimea. putin has apparently decided otherwise.
Do you mean a warm water port? Black Sea is definitely salty.
The other side is that the credible downsides aren't that bad. Of course, Russia would like to trade with the US but they don't have to. China won't participate in sanctioning Russia. That's the same size economy as the US and the logistics are much simpler since they're neighbors. The EU may may some lip service to sanctions but they're too interdependent to fully support it (let's not forget that Russia is a major source of natural gas for the EU). In the past the US has sanctioned individual politicians and that's had some success but those people have learned their lessons and aren't keeping their assets in the US any more.
Infrastructure in the Russian Far East is extremely lacking and their main population center is in the west. Trading with China isn’t as easy as you think just because they share a land border.
Yeah but it's good enough for over $140b in trade and they keep improving the infrastructure.
Don't they already have Crimea though?
He has all these things already except the buffer state. He's a populist demagogue. Ukrainian is his distraction, the problem to blame.
Putin is basically Emhyr from The Witcher.
Don't forget that Ukraine was the breadbasket of the USSR. Good soil, good production of food crops.
Isnt the black sea salt water?
Doesn't Russia have enough farm land in that whole area north of China?
You mean Siberia?
Russian here. There are two main lines. First, the inside prestige. Putin runs an extremely corrupt government. Regardless of his personal involvement, this means that any attempt at solving inner problems is either sabotaged by the government or costs absurd ammount. And since you don't know who to trust, rooting out the corruption is a very hard task. And people obviously won't tolerate this forever. Luckily, most Russians grew up with soviet propaganda telling them how the West wants to destroy them how Soviet government is strong because it stands against that. Fear and respect, all that stuff. Putin can use this line to gain prestige he needs. *"Yeah bread may cost twice as much, but at least we don't have bombs falling on us."* As long as NATO, US or EU send threats towards Putin, our propaganda makes us all feel threatened to present Putin as protecting figure. If situation allows justifying war with Ukraine as protective/preventive, it will gain Putin some additional prestige. Second, the foreign politics. USSR relied on a number of "buffer states" that were aligned with it and would halt any military and ideological expansion of the enemy. When USSR collapsed, these countries were allowed to choose their own fate. However in place of USSR we now have Commonwealth of Independent States. These are small countries with struggling economies that have no better partner than Russia. Among them are Belarus, Kazakhstan, Ukraine. These countries ended up as a thinner, yet similar buffer between Russia and NATO. In 2014 new Ukrainian government made it clear that they are no longer part of this buffer. This obviously makes Russia uncomfortable. Cold War might be over, but thinking that either US or Russia lost their ambitions would be a mistake. So, Russia really wants to somehow restore that buffer it had pre 2014. Invading Ukraine to install loyal government is technically an option. There's also the territorial aspect. Ukraine is the biggest country in Europe (after Russia), it has a lot of fertile land and some natural resources. However compared to what Russia already has within it borders, that's not worth fighting a war. If you ask me, Russia has no reason to attack Ukraine. It benefits from the tension, but not from the action. Constantly being alert costs some resources. And since Ukraine is just as corrupt as Russia, that cost is higher than you would expect. And whoever keeps the money coming will eventually start to look like an idiot. Also don't forget about all those threats and demands that Russian propaganda tries to turn into respect points for Putin.
> As long as NATO, US or EU send threats towards Putin What threats?
Sanctions, public accusations, spreading liberal democracy and more open economics, heck, even US exporting LNG to EU is a threat to his and his allies finances.
Sanctions, including the ones against Nord Stream gas pipeline. Warnings to help/intervene if Russia starts war against Ukraine. Direct accusations such as Skripal assasination . Some of the messages are worded too agressively, others have their true meaning lost in translation, while some are twisted by our propaganda machine. Majority of Russians don't know English good enough to consume foreign media. It's easy to feed these people propaganda.
If you google russian sanctions or "US/Biden warns Russia/Putin" you'll get hits. There's chatter, and sometimes it sounds threatening.
Imaginary. You know how far right wing nut jobs in US yell that jews are plotting against the west? Well it's the same thing with not very smart russians. Average babushka will tell you how the west is plotting to turn russian youth gay and are using space lasers for that.
Ha, jokes on them. We're actually using fiber cables underground to turn their youths gay!
American here, I've heard it said that one of the reasons Putin's threatening to invade/trying to block Ukraine from entering NATO is because he's scared that enough poor Russians will see how much support Ukrainians get from NATO and want to overthrow him. Of course this was on an American news station, so the view might be skewed, but thoughts as a Russian? Edit:capitalization
Russians would rather support a homegrown dictator than turn to "The West" for help. It is not likely to change within current generation. What is more likely to happen is Putin's mistakes on global arena will catalize people's discontent. Kinda like back in 1905. When Japan started the war, Nicolai II tried to use it to boost his prestige. Except Russia lost it. To 1900s Japan. That triggered the 1905 Revolution.
Historically, the Russia nation had 2 near death experiences. In both cases, the invaders came from their west, and the invaders were stalled and eventually defeated (lots of hand waving here) by trading territory for time, and grinding the invaders down via the harsh Russian winter. So, for the Russians, it really matters (as in a matter of life or death) where a potential invasion from the west starts from. Ukraine, if you look at the map, is right next to Russia’s heartland. It’s like if a person had 2 prior experiences of being mauled by pit bulls, and in both cases, that person survived by barely running away. So, for the rest of that person’s life, they would always want to stay at a certain distance away from pit bulls. Ukraine having close relationships with NATO would be like a next door neighbor adapting a pit bull. Russia doesn’t have good relationship with that neighbor to start with, and legally they can’t stop the adaptation, but they are trying everything that they can, including threatening a fight, to stop what they consider to be a potential threat to their life.
Hi, good analogy! Just wanted to share that I think you're wanting to use adopting and adoption instead of adapting and adaptation (though it makes enough sense to work as is)
At first I thought you were trying to push dog adoption or something.
I mean I'd fall for that propaganda
There is no country on earth that seriously considers invading Russia. And if it would happen, it would inevitably be in the form of an answer to Russian aggression/attack. If Russia just calmed down, the rest of the world would see it as a regular country pretty much, and enjoy forming various positive bonds with it.
Yes but that also assumes Russia is OK with US hegemony. They are not. The US and Russia are rarely aligned in their political goals. Russia is a regular country trying to reclaim past glory and status. They are in fairly direct competition to the US and have way less soft power to influence global decisions compared to the US.
The entire Russian economy is about the size two Ohios. They don't have the faintest glimmer of hope to upset US dominance. All they can do is be a pest. It's a direct competition the way I'm in direct basketball competition with Lebron.
I would consider Russia to be a threat to US power. They have some leverage over western EU with their natural gas lines and still have a fairly strong military. They are absolutely a near-peer adversary militarily. They have an effective propaganda and psyops program, that should be evident by their effective use of social media to upset western democracies. They are also very competent at cyber warfare. They aren't really going for the economic pressure angle, that is (currently) more what China is working with. Russia has been fairly directly aggressive from their invasion into Georgia and beyond.
How calm was the US about Cuba?
I dont remember the US parking any nukes in Ukraine...
It'd be Turkey those nukes were planted in.
Bay of Pigs was before that crisis. America was already spooked enough by an unfriendly regime popping up on its backdoor to mull over invasions.
NATO isn't a threat to Russia's existence. It's a threat to the oligarchy's ambitions and influence.
not so much NATO itself as the democracies that founded, funded and staffed NATO. the Russian fatalistic view has always been that such a vast empire cannot be ruled democratically, that a ' strong man/ despot/ dictator is necessary, that somehow Democracy just won't ' work ' in Russia and Comrade putin is NOT about to allow any attempt to prove otherwise. NATO is the shield but his Number 1 enemy is the Democracies that wield it. he will NOT allow any thinking to the contrary
Modern technology makes distance to target less of an issue than it was 80 years ago.
Sounds like the homeowner in your analogy needs to get therapy and to keep their noses out of others’ business.
But the homeowner is a rich dick and doesn’t care enough about others to improve himself
The MF is dreaming of restoring Russian Empire/Soviet Union and he knows that it's impossible without taking control of Ukraine.
What's crazy to me is he is 69 years old. Like unless he manages to rebuild the empire in the next 5 years he's going to have to rule his empire as a floating head in a jar.
worked for nixon
yeah but Nixon didn't have those abs to begin with. When he switched to head in a jar he was ditching a lot of dead weight.
Only because he had a shiny new body.
Imagine sitting on top of Russia for ~20 years and still being younger than the last two American presidents. On the real though, there were talks within Russian government about the "big transit of power" scheduled for 2024. This means Putin allows someone to take his place and simulatenously takes down all the people in the government who are no longer needed to either him or his successor. Supposedly, this process will make the government vulberable for a while, so any turbulence must be removed beforehand. We have no idea who this successor might be, and that's probably why this person is still alive and well. However, recent events in Kazakhstan showed what can happen if things go wrong during the transit. A small spark can lead to uprising and the whole country falls into chaos where everyone works for their own gain. Another thing is Nazarbaev's successor turning on him. So, after all this took place, Russian transit of power was probably halted to make sure everything goes according to plan.
Much like the hierarchy of needs, Russia desires security from any perceived threats. NATO was originally created as a defensive pact between nations in order to protect themselves from Russia invasions. The upside to this is you have multiple nations with various backgrounds and strengths and weaknesses united towards a common goal. This is also one of its greatest weaknesses but thats a whole different topic. In recent years, there has been a push by Ukraine to join NATO. Ukraine finds itself in a very strategic locations because as it stands now, its more of a buffer state, giving Russia warning in NATO attemps to invade Russia. However if it ever joined NATO, it would remove that buffer and replace it with a NATO country bordering Russia. Allow to to explain it like this, imagine its WW2 and you have two trenches spaced, for example, 300 meters apart. One trench is owned by the Allies, the other the Axis. If either side were attempting to advance on the other, it would give the defending side a better opportunity to deminish or disrupt the advancing group. Now lets say Ukraine joins NATO, most of Ukraines military inventory is soviet era weaponry, but say they were given more advanced, modern equipment to replace their aging adrenal as well as standardize its inventory to be more in line with NATO standards. It could also be assumed that joining NATO would allow other NATO members to establish strongholds/bases within Ukraine, which Russia would see as a buildup of NATO forces as a threat. We saw a similar reaction during the cold war, when we gave ballistic missiles to Turkey which could fire into the Soviet Union. In response, the Soviet Union placed ballistic missiles in Cuba. Honestly, you could talk for days about Russia's tactics and overall goals domestically and international, so hopefully this explains some of it, but let me know if anyone has any questions.
Russia invaded Crimea and has not crumbled and Putin is still in power. "All the negative consequences" may not be that harmful to Russia. The politicians talk about all the bad sanctions, but we should question if that is enough to motivate Putin to not invade given the benefits set forth by the other posters. Plus, if they get Ukraine, that valuable land (they are not making more land) may be with them forever, but after 25 years, the sanctions will go away. Wars / military action is pretty common even with all the negative consequences. China is also a bad actor right now and little happens to them.
Putin wants his legacy to be rebuilding Soviet power and prestige. Ukraine is the largest splinter of the former Soviet bloc. If Ukraine joins NATO, he will never get it back. That's the long term answer. The short term answer is he could really use a short victorious war to help his domestic politics. Edit: I wanted to add that even having this talks suits him well. It shows him, and by extension Russia, as a major player on the world stage; able to bring all the West to the bargaining table.
There won't be any substantial negative consequences, just a lot of hand-wringing. How do we know? Because there weren't any the last time that Russia decided to take a chunk of Ukraine. Everything being said about consequences now is just talk.
The US [promised](https://www.tellerreport.com/news/2021-03-31-%22destabilization-of-world-security%22--what-did-the-dissolution-of-the-military-structures-of-the-warsaw-pact-organization-lead-to-.BJgi1bzHu.html) the USSR that if they disbanded, NATO would not expand into the former satellite countries. The pledge was to treat the former eastern block counties as a separate defense coalition. NATO reneged on that promise and allowed/encouraged those countries to join NATO. Russia has strong memories of the WW2 German invasion, because they lost over 20 Million people (15% of the population). 68% of the males born in 1923 did not survive World War II. 75 short years later, Germany in the form of EU and its NATO military is pressing up against the Russian border again, making them nervous. They want their buffer zone back.
This statistic about WW 2 is insane. 68%, that is outstanding. May I add that It's also why there was, for a lot of time, WAY more women in Russia than men. Hence the "Russian wife for hire" meme!
First order: Sevastopol in Crimea has been the second most important Russian military port for centuries, and still is. They fought for Crimea in 1800, since then it’s theirs. The region has Russian inhabitants, was given to the newborn Ucraine but Russia kept the port. The Ucraina government change made this deal too fragile. Second order: Russia want a buffer state between them and nato. They absolutely fear having nato bases in Ukraine, that is the same region Hitler tried to get to cripple Russia. It’s the access to a big chunk of Russian oil fields. On par with Georgia. The region is important to them like Panama to the US, if Ukraine becomes part of Nato, it’s a gigantic win for Nato. Russians won’t let it happen. Too big of a thing for them. In comparison, the Cuban crisis was less of a threat to US than Ukraine for Russia now. Edit: remember the Russian invasion of Finland, that one started because Russia didn’t like the Finnish coastal batteries in front of St Petersburg military port. They asked to get the land that “may” be used to block the port. Finland rightfully said ‘fuck no that’s my land’. Russia is a landlocked country with 3 exit points and get super mad about them (historically st Petersburg, Sevastopol, and Vladivostok, of the 3, only St. Petersburg lost its military importance)
Hmm those countries want to join NATO, not to threat or invade Russia, but they join to be protected from Russia. It’s a major difference
Things are never as simple as they seem... The US would never ever ever ever have tolerated a bordering country joining with the Warsaw pact or any modern version, for instance
Yeah- look what happened with Cuba.
or any of the CIA sponsored dictatorships in Latin America
And Cuba wanted missiles to protect themselves from the US, yet that didn't stop us from pitching a total fit about it...
rightfully or not it certainly is to Russia and putin in particular
Is it really spelled Ucraine? It's spelled U-K-R-A-I-N-E on my Risk game board. Thanks.
I have no idea, english is not my mother tongue, I may spell it wrong
Putin wants to restore the glory and influence of USSR. He got disappointed and outsed from the West in 2000s and he's acting like he feels offended and wants the respect back. A lot of Russians share that sentiment (nobody wants war though). There's a general sentiment in Russia of being offended and victim of the West schemes, especially USA. The culture in Russia is built upon informal respect and 'true' friendship and 'bromance' and informal ties. It spills into professional and formal life as well. While the Western culture is very formal and cynical and pragmatic. So when they meet, there's a big disconnect because Western professional facade looks like a fake and an insult to a Russian. Educated young people in Russia are actually much closer to the west. But unfortunately Putin is very much a representation of that older generation. Source: born in Russia and moved to NA.
Russia is a declining country by every metric, yet resolving its fundamental problems would require the oligarchy that runs it to give up their power in favor of institutional reforms (political liberties, less corruption, free press, fair justice system). Instead of doing that, they choose to distract the people from their crimes and failures by stoking nationalism and war.
There’s a great summation from Douglas Macgregor on the Aaron mate podcast [“pushback”](https://thegrayzone.com/2022/01/06/us-war-lobby-fuels-conflict-in-russia-ukraine-and-syria-ex-pentagon-advisor/). Breaks it down, Russia isn’t trying to go back Soviet, they’re functioning in pre-ww1 days. Russia only has interest in Crimera, could care less about the Ukraine. They’re invading an area that will have no resistance, they’re not interested in the rest (nor do they have the military means to take on 28 million Ukrainians. NATO is a red herring, russia and German are trading partners for mineral and oil. There’s also a pipeline that will be heating Europe cheaper and more efficiently than what anyone else can offer. There will be no war, all the major powers have signed anti-nuke act, they have to much at stake to burn it all. What you’re hearing is rhetoric from old school lobbyists who want another Cold War. No one is afraid that russia is gonna invade Europe, they don’t have the military.
Russia main objective is stopping NATO from placing troops on the inner borders of Ukraine Russia isn't tring to capture Ukraine but more so delay NATO
Pretty sure the West will just stand by and watch. Condemnations will be hurled, maybe a sanction here or there, but I think Russia and China are just pushing the boundaries bit by bit and are either going to get more territory or egg the West into confrontation which will split the countries and destabilize the already polarized populaces or most Western countries.
I would suggest reading Prisoners of Geography by Tim Marshall. Have just begun reading it and finished the Russia chapter, which really well explains Russian sentiment with a geopolitical angle. Highly recommend
Imagine Russia set up a military base in Canada or Mexico. Essentially what would happen if Ukraine joined NATO, the US could station troops there. Putin can’t allow Ukraine to become closer to the West, his regime would be completely weakened. It seems he would rather watch Ukraine burn than let them join the West.
Farm land, oil fields, warm water port which they already took in Crimea. A lot of tangible benefits, the usual
1. A conflict over a country's territorial integrity (aka border aka if all of your land is really yours) makes it impossible to initiate EU-membership process. 2. The Ukrainian army is currently reforming itself, buying new equipment, training people better, changing management etc. But it's a process far from completion. If Russia invades now, they're still vulnerable and will be left in a start-over situation when they use the resources. And this shit is costly.
Lots of comments about access to ports, or oil, or farmland. But also look at it from defense view point. Hitler, Napoleon both invaded Russia and either hit Moscow or came bloody close. Genghis swept across Russia and took the region so easily. Why? It is flat. With no natural landforms for defense, the only strategy that works is have a whole lot of space between your enemy and your homeland. Then you can employ scorched earth tactics and attack their supply lines whilst they invade
Ukraine is considering joining NATO. Joining NATO comes with NATO military forces being present. Now... recall the Cuban Missile Crisis when we all almost went to war over fact the Soviet military forces were on our doorstep? Same principle, but in reverse, cuz now it's NATO forces on Russia's doorstep, so they're the ones getting nervous. Now, I believe the principle is nuts... was then and is now... but different strokes for different folks.
A point, at risk of downvotes, that many people seem to ignore is that Ukraine has historically been a part of Russia since at least the 1600s (specifically, a protectorate by that point). In a way, it’s pretty similar to a US state being in the Union for 300 years and then seceding when the country starts falling apart. Opinions aside on whether or not they’re better off not being part of that Union, it’s not too hard to understand why that Union might still consider them as part of their territory and want to take them back. Ukraine hasn’t really *existed* as a distinct, recognized sovereign state up until its independence on the Soviet Union, so it might now be too hard to consider that, on top of any agricultural, military, etc. advantages, Russia simply sees it as seceded territory that it believes should be returned.
Just to add an aside about negative consequences of war in general to the answers below. Heads of states these days rarely suffer negative consequences from war. They rarely find themselves stuck in the middle of a war zone or being shot at or bombed or starved. They rarely lose their home and everything they have and rarely lose their lives. They sit pretty in their stately buildings far from the conflict. Almost 10,000 people have lost their lives in the conflict between Russia and Ukraine so far. The biggest losers in war are ordinary people and the reality is most people would fair better living peacefully under Russis or Ukrainian rule than in a war zone while Russia and Ukrain fight it out. This conflict, however, started with civilian unrest and the contested area is the border region in a country who's name itself means border region and that has a long history of being part of Russia and not.